Thanks for accepting the debate, Fundamentalist. I look forward to an interesting debate. (Don't forget that there is a 24hr post time. I say this because I created the debate, and still almost forgot!)This debate was not intended to be a source heavy debate, just a debate over common knowledge, though I will provide sources upon request.

In this debate, I will be arguing the most important aspects of Christianity (as taught by Jesus of Nazareth) to be 4 main principles:

1) Feed the poor"And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”~Luke 3:11

-The Democratic party is known to be more lenient on welfare than the Republic party. They're criticized for providing a crutch and causing the poor to stay in the cycle they're in by providing them too much welfare and no path to get off of it.

2) Help the sick."Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord."~James 5:14

-Recently, the Democratic party has been trying to make strides towards Universal health care. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has taken heat from the Right wing of the political spectrum for costing too much money(Despite Matthew 19:23-24 saying, "Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”).

3)Not judging your neighbor"And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"~Mathew 7:3

-The 3rd principle can be exemplified through the democratic positions on abortion and their positions on marriage equality. It's not that the democratic party encourages either of the 2 (though I feel they should at least encourage marriage equality), it's that they feel as if they are not to judge anyone and to allow them to make their own decisions in their own lives. This principle can also be seen throughout the previous two stances as well.

4) Loving your neighbor."The second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' No other commandment is greater than these."~Mark 12:31

This point can be summarized with the Democratic party being more lenient on border control, and through the fact that the Democratic party is the more diverse party between the two.

It is no secret that the Republican party is the least diverse between the two and is at odds with the Democratic party on the issues of welfare, universal health care, border control (& deportation), marriage equality, and abortion. How these things will have to be swayed, in order for them to have the more Christian viewpoint, is to be the total opposite. Being that it can't be done, it is clear that the Democratic party is the party who is more encompassing of the Christian philosophy.

I would like to begin by prefacing any of my arguments and contentions with a few important bible versus, which outline the relationship between the New and Old Testaments. Matthew 5:17 is a part of the well known Sermon on the Mount, wherein Jesus proclaims "Don't think that I came to destroy the law [the Torah] or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill." This is a statement by Jesus which essentially reestablishes that the laws of the Old Testament are not null and void, but are still in effect. The areas where Jesus breaks with the Old Testament are benign; they include dietary law, Sabbath observance, and divorce laws.[1] With this in mind, I would like to make my case.

Contentions:

1 -2) I would like to address both of these arguments that you have offered up in one fell swoop, as they are both a part of a larger disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of social welfare. The major debate between the Democrats and Republicans, by and large, is a debate between whether or not giving money for social welfare should be something that is mandated. Republicans argue that social welfare programs, ideally, should be initiatives run by private charities and not the government.

In all of the passages that my opponent has provided Jesus only speaks about the importance of individuals doing charitable acts; Jesus does not command that society or government should be forced to provide for the poor and needy. Jesus contends that it is the role of CHRISTIANS to tend to the poor and sick.

The major contribution that the Republican party has made to social welfare programs in recent history has been the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which was a cornerstone of the Republican Party's 'Contract with America' during their 1994 Congressional campaign. The bill introduced working requirements on welfare, ended welfare as an entitlement program on the federal level, and introduced a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds.[2] Is this initiative in line with Christian philosophy? Yes. "Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need" ~ Ephesians 4:28.

3) Jesus' teachings on judgement are largely about the avoidance of hypocrisy, whether it be "Judge not lest ye be judged" or "And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?" Jesus has problems with hypocrites judging others, but not necessarily with judgement in and of itself.

Other sections of the bible, which Jesus acknowledges as legitimate, such as Leviticus specifically advise people as to how they should judge particular actions or people. For example, Leviticus 20:13 calls homosexuality a sin and prescribes death for both parties involved in homosexual acts.

4) On the issue of border control I would like Pro to consider two facts. The first is that because of the softness of the American economy illegal immigration has driven illegal immigration down to its lowest level in years [3]. The second is that under President Obama the number of illegal immigrants who are deported each year has increased [4]. The majority of these deportees are those who have not committed any criminal offences. In addition to this President Obama has actually increased the number of border patrol agents [5]. How can Pro say that the Democrats are more lenient on the issue of border control and deportation when the number of deportations and boots on the ground have increased quite considerably under president Obama, and his Democratic administration?

I'd like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate, uphold my case, and then go back and point out my opponent's case. My opponent's quotes will be in bold.

I. Help the sick & feed the poor

It is important to note that Jesus Christ never sent someone sick or someone homeless away on the principle of self-reliance. Instead, that's exactly what the Republican party's intentions are. The difference here is that one party is saying rely on yourself even if you can't do it, and the other is saying if you need help here is a safety net.

My opponent noted, in his response to my first two contentions, that, "Republicans argue that social welfare programs, ideally, should be initiatives run by private charities and not the government." Indeed, this is true. Ideally, private charities should be the ones who support those who need help. However, when you have a "Christian" nation, and when the private charities can't handle the magnitude of what the people need, it is important for that "Christian" nation to step up and do what they were commanded to do, feed the poor and heal the sick.

My opponent then goes on to say, "In all of the passages that my opponent has provided Jesus only speaks about the importance of individuals doing charitable acts; Jesus does not command that society or government should be forced to provide for the poor and needy. Jesus contends that it is the role of CHRISTIANS to tend to the poor and sick." Again, the problem here is that when you don't try to establish the government as 100% secular, and you try to claim that it is a Christian nation (placing Christian relics in federal buildings in court houses) and you make your decisions off of prayer and the guidance of God or call yourself God's party, you are then the nation that needs to tend to the poor and sick because you're intending to uphold Christian values. That understood, we're looking at which party exemplifies this with the least amount of resistance and the answer is the Democratic party.

My opponent's final response to the contention was the most controversial. He compared those who are in poverty and starving everyday or dying from health diseases that could be treated with proper care to thieves who are stealing other people's money citing Ephesians 4:28, "Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need." The sick and poor are not thieves who refuse to do honest work. They're the unfortunate. One must embrace that, in a capitalist society, not everyone can reach the top & there are those who cannot come from the bottom. When you establish an economic system that essentially is progress/survival of the fittest, you must do things like provide safety nets for those individuals who are not as well off when you pride yourself on being the nation of Christian values— lest you become a nation of savages.

All in all, it's not that Jesus commanded that the government has to feed the poor, that's not the issue. The issue steps in when you say you're to be a nation that upholds Christian values and then say you're the specific party of those Christian values. When you say these things, you must then become a nation who abides by feeding the poor, healing the sick, loving thy neighbor, loving God, and judging no one. People are dying everyday from starvation and treatable illnesses because private charity can't handle the magnitude. When you are upholding Jesus' teachings and you have the ability to feed them and treat them, you do so.

II. Jesus' teachings on judgement and loving thy neighbor.

My opponent's stance that, "Jesus' teachings on judgement are largely about the avoidance of hypocrisy," is simply false. Jesus doesn't teach to only (or mostly) try to judge based on non-hypocritical situations, he teaches that all judging is hypocritical because all sin is equal in the eyes of the Lord. John chapter 8 is important to this contention. It consists of a number of religious followers who brought a woman to Jesus who was accused of adultery and asked if they should stone her because that's what Moses' commandments required. Jesus then stated, "Let he without sin be the first to throw a stone." What's important here is that Jesus was saying that all of you have sinned, so picking at one person's sin is pointless because you're looking at a splinter in your neighbor's eye, while having a log in yours. It's not that you only get to judge people who sin differently, it's that all sin is sin and you don't get to judge at all. Also, my opponent is wrong for stating that Jesus upheld Leviticus when it made statements about homosexuality. Jesus made no such judgements of homosexuality.

With the understanding of the first paragraph, you have to look at the issue of homosexuality in today's society. With it combined that Jesus spoke out about judging other people based on old testament law, that he said absolutely nothing about homosexuality being bad, and that scientists have zeroed in on homosexuality being nature as much as nurture[1], one must consider that homosexuality is at least something they cannot speak out against & at most something that is uncontrollable and a legitimate attraction therefore impossible to be immoral. It is this understanding that the Democratic party upholds.

The issue of deportation and illegal immigration is more complicated than my opponent is letting on at face value. The issue of border patrol is one that is ideologically & fundamentally different between the two parties and this difference played a large role in the Hispanic vote that helped march Abeam back into the white house. [2] The problem comes in when Republicans and Democrats fail to reach agreements on the issue so we're stuck with the same laws that the government must uphold. My opponents 4th source in his latest round outlines exactly this with the following statement, "Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced on Friday that the agency surpassed its record number of deportations in the past fiscal year, but also will enact reform of a controversial immigration enforcement program that could lead to fewer non-criminal immigrants being removed from the country... Obama has promised to make a major push next year for comprehensive immigration reform that would give legal status to some of the estimated 11.1 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S." [My opponent's 4th source] It then goes on to state that the Obama administration has set forth a new policy that says they will not even go after illegal immigrants who have committed crimes unless they've accrued more than 3 misdemeanors.

So, in my opponent's source, you have a Democratic president forced to uphold the law, and then when he sees the laws are leading to an escalated number of unfair deportations he introduces a new policy that makes it to where illegal immigrants can stay even if they've committed up to 3 misdemeanors. That's not helping my opponent's case, it hurts his case.

III. No fundamentally Christian values being upheld by the Republican Party.

It's important to note that my opponent has yet to show how the Republicans uphold Christian values other than by simply claiming they're the party of God. It appears he's shown how they have tried to slip through the cracks on societal welfare policies and get away with doing nothing by claiming fiscal responsibility. But even the, Jesus made it clear what his views on holding money over societal acts. "It is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."~Mark 10:25.

I'm going to go through my opponent's prior arguments systematically, and then offer up a few affirmative arguments of my own.

I. Help the Sick and Feed the Poor

What is important to understand about conservative ideology is that it doesn't just hold that social welfare programs should be administered by private charities, they believe that private charities are the more effective and efficient mode of delivery. The members of the Republican party genuinely believe that they are upholding the tenets of Christian philosophy when they call for the private administration of social welfare programs, as they believe that the poor and needy are best served when private charities are more empowered. If my opponent wants to show that the alternative is more in line with Christian philosophy, then they are going to have to come to the debate next round with some solid evidence that the public administration of social welfare programs is the superior mode of transportation.

My opponent misunderstood my intention in quoting Ephesians; when the poor are dependent of public social safety nets, and they are taking the money of non consenting parties. You may say that the principle of the two scenarios are different, however realistically they are inseparable. The Bible claims that those whose dependent on the taking of money from others should be made more self reliant, which what the Republican party attempted to do through their reforms to welfare.

II.
My opponent has used a highly contested section of the Bible to justify their their counter contention that Jesus was not just concerned with hypocrisy in judgment. However, even if we accept that this portion of the Bible is legitimate, there is still an inherent contradiction in Jesus saying that we should forgo judgment, but that the rules of the old testament are still in effect, as the Old Testament instructs us to judge each other and tells us what the punishments for transgressions should be. It is unfair to fault the Republican party for following one of two contradictory messages contained within the bible.

My opponent committed a fallacious appeal to nature in order to justify why homosexuality should not be considered immoral; my opponent claims that because homosexuality has a genetic component it is wrong for members of the Republican party to consider it immoral. Some people are genetically predisposed to murder and rape, and both these actions take place in nature, yet the overwhelming consensus is that in spite of this the act is still considered immoral.

On the issue of immigration the Republican party has been pushing for greater control of, and security on the border of the United States and Mexico. If securing the border had been an issue that garnered bipartisan support the deportation and displacement of illegal immigrants may not be as grand in scale. And let us not forget, both of these parties have one end goal, to prevent more people than necessary from coming to the most economically prosperous nation on Earth. It has really only been Libertarians who have been calling for open border, and they have a greater proclivity to join the Republican party.

III.
The Republican party emphasizes the importance on individual economic self sufficiency; this is a principle outlined by both the passage from Ephesians, which I mentioned earlier, as well as the Parable of the ten talents, in which a servant is punished by his master for not taking advantage of the talent that his master bestowed to him.

"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, then either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and that we just don't want to do it."~Stephen Colbert

I. Social Welfare Programs

Whether someone agrees with Christianity or is an atheist, it is very understood that their chore teachings are that of helping the poor, helping the sick, loving your neighbor, and to be non judgemental. Whether it is being upheld better in the Republican party or in the Democratic party is what is up for question. It's not whether or not one party 'thinks' they're doing what they're supposed to, it's if they actually are.

What is clear in today's debate, is that people are dying of hunger everyday, people are dying from the lack of health care everyday, and people are being denied basic civil rights because of prejudice discrimination everyday. The Republican answer to this problem is to have less involvement on behalf of the government with social programs, and to further deny the civil rights of marriage to those who are homosexuals.

Now, the government doing less is okay if the space is being filled by a private company who is willing and able to feed the poor or provide health care for the sick. Though there are some companies that try, none of them can handle hundreds of billions of dollars worth of health care and billions more for food. My opponent suggesting that I provide evidence for the fact that private companies can't afford to pay for the insurance of everyone who can't afford it or for everyone's food who can't afford it, is essentially like asking for evidence to support the idea that cars have wheels.

Again, in and of itself, a government that is not Christian doesn't have to do these things. However, a government that has established itself as a Christian nation has that burden.

II. Controversial issues

My opponent's statement, "The Bible claims that those whose dependent on the taking of money from others should be made more self reliant, which what the Republican party attempted to do through their reforms to welfare," is not only irrelevant in this discussion, it's completely opposite of what Jesus of Nazareth actually instructed Christians to do.

Jesus said things like, "If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back," (Luke 6:29-30). He also said, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me," (Mathew 19:21).

To be a Christian and pretend Jesus never wanted you to take care of the poor (unconditionally) is to join PETA with the belief that they allow animal sacrifice.

My opponent then went on to address homosexuality by saying, "My opponent committed a fallacious appeal to nature in order to justify why homosexuality should not be considered immoral; my opponent claims that because homosexuality has a genetic component it is wrong for members of the Republican party to consider it immoral. Some people are genetically predisposed to murder and rape, and both these actions take place in nature, yet the overwhelming consensus is that in spite of this the act is still considered immoral." The problem here is that this is a false analogy. Murder and rape are both immoral in and of themselves and people who are born with murderous habits are called psychopaths. Homosexuality is only immoral based on religious belief and is as natural as heterosexuality in respects to the fact that it is present in over 1,500 species in nature.[1] Now, my opponent could say killing is natural as well, however killing is an immoral act in and of itself. No one has to tell you that killing is bad, we know that it is. It is not immoral for a human being to love another human being who they are predisposed to love, nor is it immoral for that person to wish to marry that other person. What's immoral is to tell two people who love each other that they can't ever marry because your improbable personal opinion of the origin of the cosmos says so and in fact their whole attraction is a disgusting abomination, when to them it comes as natural as your attraction for females.

On the topic of border control, my opponent made the statement that, "...bboth of these parties have one end goal, to prevent more people than necessary from coming to the most economically prosperous nation on Earth." That is correct, they both do want to make at least some distinction on who can and cannot come into this country. However, one party is profoundly more emphatic about this than the other, and that would be the Republican party.

My opponent keeps talking about Ephesians as if it upholds Christian morals, but the answer is that it doesn't. Christian teachings don't encompass the idea that only some people deserve help only when they really need it. Christian teachings say what was said above, to turn your other cheek if you're wronged, give ever time you're asked to, and to serve others unconditionally.

III. Conclusion

In conclusion, I'd like to note that my opponent still has not proved that the Republican party has upheld more Christian teachings than the Democratic party. He hasn't set forth any aspect of Christianity that Republicans can uphold better than the Democrats at all.

Jesus Christ was a socialist deity, who supported the redistribution of the loaves and fish of the wealthy. If that doesn't sound more like a Democrat than a Republican, I don't know what does.

My opponent's statement, "The Bible claims that those whose dependent on the taking of money from others should be made more self reliant, which what the Republican party attempted to do through their reforms to welfare," is not only irrelevant in this discussion, it's completely opposite of what Jesus of Nazareth actually instructed Christians to do.

Jesus of Nazarath certainly did present self-sufficiency as a virtuous characteristic for us as humans to have. Through his parables Jesus Christ attempts convey to his followers how he believes that people should conduct themselves. One of his Parables is that of the Ten Talents. In this story a master scorns one of his servants for not investing the talents bestowed to him as his other servants have. The message of this parable is clear; humans are, according to Christian philosophy, meant to be industrious and self-sufficient and when we refuse this calling we anger God. This message of the importance of industriousness and self-sufficiency is reiterated by Ephesians 4:28, as well Proverbs 21:25-26, which decries indolence. Republican reforms to public social safety nets are perfectly in line with this aspect of Christian philosophy; by placing work requirements on welfare and ending its status as an entitlement program, at least on a federal level, those who were on the government dole, but were able to provide for themselves, were provided with a greater incentive to conform to this aspect of Christian philosophy. Ephesians 4:28 instructs us to turn thieves into remunerative members of society. While my opponent reacted harshly to me drawing a comparison between thieves, and those who take advantage of welfare, the similarities are considerable enough that this verse is applicable.

Jesus said things like, "If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back," (Luke 6:29-30). He also said, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me," (Mathew 19:21).

To be a Christian and pretend Jesus never wanted you to take care of the poor (unconditionally) is to join PETA with the belief that they allow animal sacrifice

This statement is unfair; Republicans do not believe that we should wash our hands of the poor, but that private charity is better suited to handle social ills than the government is. My opponent has offered up no reason as to why the government is better suited to handle the administration of welfare programs, beyond that unsubstantiated assertion that “Though there are some companies that try, none of them can handle hundreds of billions of dollars worth of health care and billions more for food. My opponent suggesting that I provide evidence for the fact that private companies can't afford to pay for the insurance of everyone who can't afford it or for everyone's food who can't afford it, is essentially like asking for evidence to support the idea that cars have wheels.” Seeing as my opponent has the burden of proof in this debate I don’t believe that it is unreasonable to ask him to provide such proof, and seeing as he has not, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty which approach would best help the poor. Thus, it is unfair to claim that the Democratic party does a better job in helping the poor than the Republican Party does.

On the topic of border control, my opponent made the statement that, "...bboth of these parties have one end goal, to prevent more people than necessary from coming to the most economically prosperous nation on Earth." That is correct, they both do want to make at least some distinction on who can and cannot come into this country. However, one party is profoundly more emphatic about this than the other, and that would be the Republican Democratic party.

I would like to point out that in 2006 President Bush, a Republican president, made proposals for immigration reform that were very similar to those now being offered up by the Democrats now in 2012 [1]. And again I would like to remind everyone that both of these parties are trying to prevent people from escaping their less prosperous countries and entering into the United States; this is hardly an action that could be considered loving your neighbour. I would also like to point out that many members of the Republican party are pushing for legislation similar to that of the DREAM act.[2] All in all, I would say that the issue of border security is a wash, and cannot be used to justify the claim that the Democrats do a better job of loving their neighbours.On the issue of judgment, I feel as though I need only reiterate the points that I made earlier on in this debate: Matthew 5:17 is a statement by Jesus which essentially reestablishes that the laws of the Old Testament are not null and void, but are still in effect. There is an inherent contradiction in Jesus saying that we should forgo judgment, but that the rules of the Old Testament are still in effect, as the Old Testament instructs us to judge each other and tells us what the punishments for transgressions should be. It is unfair to fault the Republican party for following one of two contradictory messages contained within the bible.

Conclusion:My opponent hasn't upheld the burden of proof that was place upon him by taking the affirmative position in this debate.

Hello dear, my name is Ester, i came across your profile now.So I decided to stop by an let you know that I really want to have a good friendship with you. Beside i have something special i want to discuses with you, but I find it difficult to express myself here, since it's a public site. I will be very happy, If you can get back to me, through my e-mail iD(esteredmond(at )ymail.c o m)

"I'm not one to say things about a judge's decision, but I have some confusion. How is the argument, "Governments aren't suppose to uphold Christian law" an effective point to show that the Republican party is showing more of the Christian philosophy? If the debate is about proving which party is showing more of the Christian philosophy, how can a winning tactic be to say that no one should be showing the philosophy so that means the Republican party is okay in not exhibiting it (as if they aren't trying to)?"

I'll assume you're not talking to me, since I wholly agree with your assessment.

However, I still think that CON's Ephesians point was very strong and demonstrated a very difficult-to-refute aspect of Republican ideology. A possible refutation would have been that the policy was enacted nearly 20 years ago, and is less relevant to how the GOP functions today.

Lol, just realized. Somehow I missed the part in R1 saying that Christianity is interpreted as the teachings of Jesus only. So Leviticus not being endorsed by Jesus himself is a valid rebuttal after all. Nice one.

I'm not sure why Pro didn't bring abortion up after R2 because it could have been a useful argument for him. Instead this was 100% about gay marriage. There's some interesting dynamics discussed about hypocrisy vs judging, but its overriden by the bible verses that address homosexuals directly. Leviticus tells us that homosexuality is wrong, straight-up. Con says that Jesus didn't say this himself, which is true - but its still in the bible, and the bible teaches Christianity. So, since there wasn't a legitimate rebuttal against the anti-gay passage in the bible, this goes Con.

3. Loving thy neighbor

In R3, Pro said that Obama is pushing to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Con doesn't properly respond to this, only saying that republicans are for tight border security and vaguely saying that both parties want to restrict immigration. But Obama pushing for the previous immigration reform contradicts this, and its not responded to.

Con says in R4 that Bush pushed for similar pro-immigration plans in 2006 and talks about the DREAM act. The issue is that this argument should have been made in R3, and not in R4 (when Pro can't respond). I think it responds to Pro's R3 argument pretty well, but as far as determing a winner of the debate, I have to vote on Pro's argument about Obama pushing for immigration reform because its not responded to in the round its made, and the rebuttal comes a round late. So I give the W to Pro on this one.

Conclusion: Pro wins 2/3 arguments and therefore wins the debate.

On a side note, awesome round, guys. there was some good discussion here.

Reasons for voting decision: Point 1 I give to Con, in that it doesn't need to be the government that upholds welfare. Point 2 I give to Pro. While Con attempted to address points 1 & 2 simultaneously, he only really addressed point 1. Point 2 went uncontested. Point 3 I give to Pro as Con mainly relied on Old Testament laws which were refuted by Jesus. Point 4 I give to Pro as Con mainly addressed only Obama and the current administration rather than Democratic ideology.

Reasons for voting decision: This debate was difficult for me; I passionately hate Christ and all of Christendom, yet frequently admire the Democratic Party for its gentleness towards the poor, sick and underprivileged. Forced to consider only the aspects presented in this talk, I feel that the insult is warranted at least somewhat. The Democratic Party does seem to share some attributes with the Christian community. The counter that "charity should not be mandated" was, to me not convincing - since Jesus mandates charity with the penalty of hellfire. It was the only score that I was comfortable awarding.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly stated in the first round of the debate that "Christianity" was to be defined as the teachings of Jesus Christ specifically; despite this, however, Con primarily attempted to build his Case with Pauline and Proverbial scripture. Therefore, seeing as how Pro made a stronger case that the Democratic party is more consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ himself, I award Pro points for strongest arguments.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.